October 2, 2006

Drudge is reporting -- with rotating siren -- that the Washington Times is about to call for Hastert to resign. It seems like a good move to me. Is Hastert so valuable to Republicans? Let him magnanimously step down for the good of the party. Why not?

House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once. Either he was grossly negligent for not taking the red flags fully into account and ordering a swift investigation, for not even remembering the order of events leading up to last week's revelations -- or he deliberately looked the other way in hopes that a brewing scandal would simply blow away. He gave phony answers Friday to the old and ever-relevant questions of what did he know and when did he know it? Mr. Hastert has forfeited the confidence of the public and his party, and he cannot preside over the necessary coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept performance.

Gahrie said..."Hastert should resign. His reign has been a disaster for the party."

Reign implies rule, but Hastert has always played Louis XIII to DeLay's Richelieu.

Unless or until serious evidence appears that Hastert and others in the leadership team were aware of the extent of the problem a year ago -- rather than merely being aware, in the most abstract terms, that there had been some sort of inappropriate e-mail contact between Foley and the page, as his office currently contends -- he should not resign, but should not stand for the Speakership in the 110th Congress. In light of the Democrats' demonstrated commitment to throwing around wild insubstantial accusations, as in the plamegate non-scandal, I cannot see how they expect to be taken seriously when they suggest that someone should resign their seat every time an accusation is made. They're just pissed that they couldn't push Roveout and they want another go.

Hastert has always been the embodiement of the Peter Principle. An accidental Speaker. This latest only further demonstrates it. He typifies all that is wrong with the Illinois Republican Party which has become marginalized through attempting to damp down the waves in order to preserve what they already had.

An old wrestling coach *should* know that "no pain" means "no gain." I doubt if he knew about the IMs, but he knew about the emails and he *should* have quickly made a more thorough investigation and then forced Foley out (and possibly have seen to a more legal investigation into pedophiliac acts). He didn't because he's too cautious and too far above his level of competence.

I had forgotten how much Hastert had already annoyed the Republican base with his earlier shenanigans (especially the Jefferson thing).

This wanna-be "scandal" wouldn't even damage a Speaker that the party actually wanted in place. But it might serve as a decent enough flimsy rationalization for Republicans who already wanted him gone to actually get rid of him. With a little bit of slight of hand they could even spin it as being true to the "8 year" pledge. :)

I think it may be good for Hastert to resign in favor of a younger Republican with flair for 1994. Besides, Hastert has been in too long.

It could be that the Foley deal will drive Democrats over the top to a majority. It is interesting that Democrats will have achieved such a majority because of a gay page scandal involving one Congressman that soured the republican base for a moment rather than something else, such as...um.... new ideas to make America a better place.

I continue to wait for Democrats to explain what exactly it is that they think is so scandalous about two males over the age of consent engaging in apparently-consensual sexually licentious behaviour. Conservatives have standing to criticize Foley's conduct; liberals thusfar do not.

Hastert's inaction in the face of the information he had about Foley last year might not be a scandal. It would be impossible and unfair to argue that he was somehow complicit in Foley's behavior.

It's just evidence that Hastert is incompetent. A vigilant leader doesn't let such a potentially toxic problem as this one just grow to these proportions. He has the imagination to consider what the problem might grow into. He does something about it, instead of waiting passively, hoping it will go away.

As a former teacher/coach himself, Hastert should have realized what "overly friendly" meant in this context.

Hell yes, he should step down as Speaker, and Boehner should go down with him. If the message is "Republicans will protect us better," then you need to put clear incompetents on the back bench.

One thing you can be sure of is that any whiff of scandal causes frothing-at-the -mouth partisans on either side, perhaps a little more with the deranged Left - to start screaming:

"RESIGN!""RESIGN!""RESIGN!"

Lets think..a month before a general election, with an investigation that has just started - Democrats and certain fearful Reps are apparantly in a position where they have heard what they want to hear and have pronounced Hastert guilty of failing to launch a gay witch hunt.

It was not to long ago that the same morons were demanding Karl Rove be dragged out of the White House in handcuffs (the rabid Lefties) or in the craven Rep ranks - "resign for the good of the Party" since the media endorses the idea.

The time to do something is when the dust settles and the investigation shows if anyone was criminally culpable...or after the election when Republicans are either looking at the Minority Leader after Denny cleans out his office for Nancy or looking at a Speaker who has somehow survived an election that his poor judgements over years helped place in doubt.

ChrisO put it well: The only defense being offered for Hastert is that if he did know about it he would have dealt with Foley a year ago, rather then letting the time bomb tick. Right, because Hastert is such a legendary mental giant that there's absolutely no possibility that he would choose the stupid option. Especially since he is running a House where any concept of oversight or accoutability has been long abandoned.

The best move would be to wait, and if the corruption, K-street feeding troughs for swine, the out of control spending, corporate cronyism, lack of effort on America's critical issues, Foley misjudgements, failure to stand up to Bush, and the Clubhouse mentality where Jefferson and others must be defended as Clubhouse members - are all too much. Then Hastert can be properly voted out.

Not leave and have the Reps claiming everything was fine, but poor Denny had to fall on his sword so business as normal could continue.

Unless or until serious evidence appears that Hastert and others in the leadership team were aware of the extent of the problem a year ago -- rather than merely being aware, in the most abstract terms, that there had been some sort of inappropriate e-mail contact between Foley and the page, as his office currently contends -- he should not resign, but should not stand for the Speakership in the 110th Congress.

No one is calling for him to resign his office, just his leadership position. The voters in his district will determine if he stays another term.

I had forgotten how much Hastert had already annoyed the Republican base with his earlier shenanigans (especially the Jefferson thing).

Yup. I'm still steamed about that. Thats why, after hearing his weasel response of "I don't recall", I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt. He should step down from his leadership position.

Isn't it strange that 4-5 media outlets have known about the emails regarding Foley, a republican congressman, and no democrats have known about it. Do you think it is possible that the media outlets were able to keep this secret from democrats - especially after they decided not to run stories....

On Hastert. I am not sure if he should resign based on this story. Especially now that it is clear if a liberal media outlet didn't publish the story, how could we expect Haster to run it. However, in general, I think House Republicans need new leadership. They should not be in the situation they are in where a Democratic party with no actual plans or ideas other than cut and run is able to mount a challenge.

Hastert has mostly focused on bringing home pork (about 1/3 of new Federal spending in the state of Illinois has always ended up in Hastert's district, which is 5% populationwise of the state.)

The reason he hasn't taken more heat before is that he had an even more lighting rod lieutenant working under him-- former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (and if you think for a moment that Hastert wasn't privvy to some of DeLay's questionable financial dealings on behalf of the party, you are in dreamsville; Denny had to have known.) Now that DeLay is gone Denny has no one to run interference for him and absorb the fiery darts thrown at the house leadership.

Certainly if Democrats take control of the house, the Republicans will shake up their leadership and Hastert will be one of the first out the door. If Republicans hang on, they will be happy to have dodged a bullet and the status quo will probably be preserved for at least another election cycle but the strength of the Hastert led house is starting to look like a really tired runner, trying to make it to the next water stand so he can run on a little farther. No matter what happens, the end is in sight.

Isn't it strange that 4-5 media outlets have known about the emails regarding Foley, a republican congressman, and no democrats have known about it.

The Democrats did know about it months ago (since July at least). They were just waiting until closer to the election to break the story, so the Republicans wouldn't be able to get somebody else's name on the ballot in Foley's place. You can tell how all the talking points were in place to be fed to drones like Doyle, while the Republicans are still trying to figure out what's going on.

As for Democrats knowing and waiting until close to the election, that's just one more reason why Republican leaders are blameworthy. They left the issue there to be exploited at will by their opponents, allowing them to choose the timing. What ineptitude! The Democrats should argue not just that they are more morally upright, but that they are more competent at running things. I don't know if they are, but they've got evidence of Republican incompetence.

Doyle,Yet again, you either completely miss the point, or at least, feign ignorance to avoid answering it. The point isn't whether or not I find this kind of behavior abhorrent - I do. But of course I find it reprehensible - I'm a conservative. What I "need" a liberal to "explain" to me is why liberals are now castigating Foley for behavior that they usually defend - consensual sexual activity between two males over the age of consent. I'm not defending Foley's behavior, I'm castigating liberal hypocrisy.

There are some rumors here in D.C. that the FBI has a number of Members and senior staff under investigation for similar conduct. I would be somewhat shocked if this behavior is limited to one side of the aisle. Using influence to get sexual favors from interns, and to help trade in wives of 25 years for junior staffers 25 years of age, is a bipartisan hobby. Going to cocktail parties attended by anybody who is A through D list, you can meet these charming Winter/Spring couples. In fact, they are so charming, I often find myself getting vertigo. "Hey, if it's not Senator family values with his new wife, Youngenough Tobe Hisdaughter." I am fairly sickened by the Republicans and as much as I cannot stand statist, liberal polices, will not mind seeing the Republicans chastened.

As a matter of good politics, however, the Dems might want to be careful about kicking over this particular rock. I don't think anybody knows what will come crawling out once the FBI does a search of emails sent to and from pages by Members and senior staff. I'm sure the DNC's gamble is that any FBI reports will take a while to percolate into the public eye, and with some luck will break early in the next election cycle. Good luck on that...

"As for Democrats knowing and waiting until close to the election, that's just one more reason why Republican leaders are blameworthy. They left the issue there to be exploited at will by their opponents, allowing them to choose the timing."

That comment seems to rest on certain assumptions about what the leadership knew, assumptions that are not yet demonstrated. My view is that it is far from clear that the leadership was aware of the content of these messages "a year ago"; if they were aware, they should be tarred and feathered, but not unless or until.

I see this whole thing through the prism of Plamegate, where Democrats leaped all over a nonstory in their desparate search for a scandal, ably aided and abetted by the media. They desparately wanted to bring down Rove, they failed; now they have a sitaution where someone really HAS done something wrong, but the Dems aren't satisfied with just putting the hit on some pervert Congressman, they are desparate to find a way to make this mud stick to a wider range of targets. And frankly, neither the Democrats nor the media have any credibility whatsoever on this issue.

The GOP may be inept, but it will be delicious watching prominent Democrats like Sen. Kennedy, Pres. Clinton, and Barney Frank comment on this. In the eyes of average folks in Iowa or Tennessee, it's hard to see how the national Democratic establishment comes out ahead here.

The only thing we should be surprised about is that we're still surprised about such degrading matters, either in American life or our arts.

George, I don't see what the Democrats have to do to come out ahead in a Republican scandal. Other than, well, nothing. For a party that is supposed to be about Values, when a National Leader lets something like this happen -- Well, I doubt it plays well to an already restive base.

Maybe the Democrat leadership knew better than to back up rumors until some concrete evidence turned up.

I doubt anyone guessed what a huge target Hastert would turn out to be in this. Without that, the Democrats didn't have all that much incentive to take Foley down.

Who would want to be the prominent Democrat to start blabbing on record about some other politicians' sex problems. Why get connected, even as a virtuous scold, with Foley's creepy behaviour. Better to sit tight and let the story come out on its own.

As for Democrats knowing and waiting until close to the election, that's just one more reason why Republican leaders are blameworthy.

Now it turns out that the FBI also had the emails but did not have enough evidence to investigate.

What is Hastert supposed to do?

Consider the following theoretical news story:

Speaker Hastert today, opened an investigation on Congressman Mark Foley regrading inappropriate emails that Mr. Foley may have sent to male pages (all of whom were minors). Speaker Hastert opened the investigation despite the review of five news organizations, including the NY Times, and the FBI, who all said the emails did not merit further investigation.

Do you think Haster would have been called to resign for asking for an investigation when non one else thought one was warranted. Do you think Hastert would have been accused of gay bashing?

The whole Foley incident brings out the worst set of facts for the gay community. Here you have a prominent member of society, who is gay and had hidden the fact that he lusted after teenagers. This sort of public fact only bolsters the arguments made by the Boy Scouts and their supporters who do not want to take the risk that gay scouting leaders may have similar dispositions.

As I noted yesterday, all Hastert had to do was leak the emails to an aggressive journalist. Do it before the Primary, and problem solved. If he's clever, (BIG If, it turns out), he can keep his fingerprints off everything as well.

As it is, now the Republicans get to read quotes like: It's one of the worst congressional scandals ever. A top House Republican who denounced sex predators as 'animals' stands accused of acting like one. And that's a quote from a Republican! A good leader doesn't let that kind of thing happen.

Again, how was Hastert supposed to know that Foley was sending explicit emails to Pages. All he knew about was the request for a photo, which the FBI and five news organizations said was nothing.

We have the luxury of looking at the photo request while also knowing about the IMs, thus the photo request seems more obvious to us now. However, if we did not know about the IMs, the photo request would seem a lot more innocuous. And Foley could have easily come out and said that he keeps photos to help him remember names or something like that so he knows who he is talking to on the phone or getting emails from.

How could Hastert have avoived being a gay basher (by assuming the worst for a gay member of Congress rather than giving him the benefit of the doubt like any other member) while at the same time investigating Foley more thoroughly.

"I was rebuked by Tcd within minutes."dtl, like your comment (and similar comments from lefties) about Hastert was not an attempt to use the sexual proclivities of one Republican congressman to smear all Republican congressmen? I think Simon's take on this scandal is spot on. I am looking at this scandal through the prism of Plamegate and will withold judgement until an investigation is complete. I just cannot trust the Democrats or the MSM to tell the truth.

Dolye, where were the Democrats while all this was going on? Scuttlebut in DC is that everyone suspected Foley of foul play - interns gossip with staff. And we know how congress-critters circle the wagons to protect their perks.

So why didn't the Democrat leadership step in and put a stop to this? They could have outed Foley long ago. Do you think they looked the other way until the time came for exploiting it poltically? What did Pelosi know and when did she know it? ;)

Fenris -- Nancy Pelosi has responsibility for her caucus -- the Democrats. She is not responsible for the odious shenanigans of Republicans. Rep. Foley is ultimately responsible for his own behavior, and as his supervisor, so is Dennis Hastert for allowing it to occur.

Keeping track of Republican Sexual Pecadilloes would probably require a full-time staff member on Pelosi's payroll. Just like it would require one on Hastert's, or Boehner's, payroll for monitoring Democrats. The whistle blowing would be so shrill as to drown out all political speech. And when attention is focused on sex, little things like National Security get short shrift, to potentially devastating effect.

Believe it or not, Simon, it's not an article of Liberal faith that you can just do whatever you want.

Heh, this is flat wrong. The essence of liberal/leftism is to make up your own truth. If you can get enough people to support your version of the truth, you can undue anything - like reinterpret the Constitution.

Conservatives in contrast, believe that the truth is the truth and it cannot be altered.

Funny that MadisonMan said "Nancy Pelosi has responsibility for her caucus -- the Democrats. She is not responsible for the odious shenanigans of Republicans." The Dems aren't responsible for "protecting America's children", apparently. Must be a partisan issue to them. I haven't seen them so gleeful since Cheney and Rove outed Plame...

"I protect my own children. I do what I can to help protect my children's friends. I don't need the Government's help.

Really? So you are presumably fully on board with school vouchers, then, since you don't want the government "helping" you decide what your child does and doesn't learn and what they are and aren't protected from?

Doyle, I have to admit that when people use a term such as "unitary executive theory" as an epithet, as you do here, it's very hard to presume that they could describe what, say, the unitary executive theory is if their life depended on it. It's like describing someone as a big fan of the theory of gravity - you're trying to rebut a descriptive theory by attatching a normative presumption.

The issue of Rep. Hasert's leadership is an important one for several reasons. No doubt there are a lot of sexual shenanigans on the hill, There have been plenty of scandals to go around and for the most part they are amusing but not creepy the way the Foley incident appears to be. The Speaker's office was aware of the emails as was the chairman of the page committee and a number of others in the leadership. Because of the prior scandals involving pages, this should have been dealt with immediately and with conviction. The Speaker does not have to have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. All he has to have is a rumor (and of course he had more than that) to call then Rep. Foley on the carpet and demand he cease and desist. In addition he should have demanded that any other emails be brought forward and dealt with. There are a number of reasons why a leader would do this: the obvious one of supervisor/underling sexual harrassment, for the good of the Congress, to keep high ethical standards, and to protect the party from further scandal. These are all legitimate reasons to discipline him and since the Congress makes its own rules regarding the members, the Speaker has the power to enforce them.

Of course the reality is that as long as you don't rock the boat, nothing happens on either side of the aisle. Rep. Hasert's actions towards the other felons and near felons under his leadership (Rep Delay, Rep. Cunningham, Rep. Ney) all have one thing in common with Rep. Foley, these congressman contributed millions of dollars to the party. One news report I read pointed out that concurrent with the Speaker being made aware of the emails, Rep. Foley gave $100,000 to the national party. In addition, there have been inquiries as to what he will now do with the $2.5M that his PAC still has available.

Doyle, first of all, let state immediately, right up front, that Hastert should resign. Frankly, I think he should resign because he's been acting like a big-ass Liberal Democrat. He's been power-hungry and prinicples-free.

So, all y'all Liberals who see Republicans, especially principled conservatives calling for Hastert to resign, should take a deep breath, stop doing the sidelines-jump-for-joy-schandefreude boogie and ponder for a minute on the spectacle of a political group of people who are engaged in the act of putting their principles before their personal gain.

You all should learn a lesson by observing this. This is how real, moral, principled people behave.

None of you have a shred of authenticity to be pointing one digit of a finger.

So, go sit silently on the bench, while we clean our own house. We've watched you folks sell out every one of your so-called Liberal Principles, one after another, until you have not a scintilla of credibility left.

I'd love to leave him a comment-bomb, but frankly I don't have the energy to put up with that clunky TownHall piece of junk.

Good lord again.

I'll just say this one more time, for emphasis and in order to make it easier for me to get through today. We are not Democrats. We are not Liberals. We don't look the other way for Bill Clinton, and we don't slap Gerry Studds on the wrist, and we certainly don't tolerate the likes of Barney Frank.

Unlike Liberals and Democrats, we will not flush our values down a toilet so that we can maintain a death-grip on the reins of power. We are decent, we have values, and we will clean our own house.

Get out, Hastert. Get out, Hugh Hewitt.

Yes, Democrats and most certainly Liberals are a disaster for everything they touch. They will harm America and Freedom if they ever get anything remotely approximating power in the US government.

But, make no mistake, and be prepared to pay the price. We are not Liberals and we are not Democrats and we WILL clean our house.

Right:Let him immediately step down for the good of the page who wrote the word "sick" twelve times on a printout of an obscene email from Foley. For the good of all the pages who remain employed with the Congress, for the good of all the honest politicians of both parties who wouldn't have hidden this disgraceful behavior, for the good of our nation.